Real Time Analytics



 

 

The left likes to call it the “birther” issue.   The term birther is used as a derisive term by the left, much as truther is.   Of course the difference is truthers beliefs are based on a paranoid ideology, where as the birther issue is based on facts.

 

I prefer to call it the eligibility issue, not the birther issue.  Whether you agree or not, the people who are pushing the eligibility issue are on our side.  It is certainly counter-productive to deride them like liberals do.

 

Recently a whole stream of Republicans have come out, at the prompting of the drive by media, to reassure us that Obama is a citizen and oh, yes, he is a Christian too. 

 

Last Sunday, at the prodding of David Gregory on Meet the Press, or as Rush likes to call it, Meet the depressed, Boehner said, the State of Hawaii had said he was born there, that was good enough for him. 

 

Karl Rove, not a friend of the Tea Party, pushed the RINO line that Obama is a citizen and Sarah Palin, at a meeting in Long Island, a few days ago, also denounced the eligibility issue.   Palin ended her remarks on the subject by saying, “let’s stick with what really matters.”

 

This issue does matter.

 

There are three variations on the eligibility issue.  Two are based on undisputed facts.  The third is in dispute.

 

The most commonly reported of the eligibility challenges is the claim that Obama was actually born in Kenya, not Hawaii.   I believe, based on the available evidence, that it is more likely than not, Obama was actually born in Hawaii.   Obama has spent a lot of time and (other people’s) money, keeping his original birth certificate out of sight. 

 

Why?

 

Jack Cashill is one of my favorite writers and he has a theory which I think makes sense, that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, but there is something else on his birth certificate that would destroy the myth of Barack Obama.  (See his website, Cashill.com).   In the law, there is a presumption that if a party has exclusive access to a piece of evidence and will not release it, the evidence must be adverse to their position.

 

The second eligibility issue is the claim that because Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan, a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth, he is not a natural born citizen.

 

The third is the argument that because Barack Obama was adopted as a child by an Indonesian and moved to Indonesia, he is not an American citizen.   Under the law at that time, if an American child was adopted by a citizen of another country and moved to that country, he lost his citizenship.   He could regain his citizenship by applying at an American Embassy when he was 18, but would then be treated as a naturalized citizen and thus ineligible to be President. 

 

What is stunning about all of this is the mainstream Republican reaction to the eligibility issues. 

 

The RINOs turn their noses up at the people who want the answers, which, incidentally is 60% of Republican voters.  They turn their noses up at the Tea Party movement.  Yet, they do not take a moment to consider why this is important.

 

If Barack Obama is proved to be ineligible to be President, everything he has done is wiped out.  Obamacare is gone.  The START treaty is gone.  The liberal lunatics Obama has appointed to the Federal Judiciary, including the two he has put on the Supreme Court are gone.

 

Much of the damage Obama has done to this country can be undone.  Unfortunately, the Country Club Republicans remain clueless. In their minds, the Democrats are simply the lower class versions of themselves.  They do not understand that if the party of treason has its way, America will be forever changed and ultimately destroyed.

 

The Courts have so far brushed aside all of the eligibility claims.  None have been addressed on the merits under the claim that Americans lack standing to challenge the issue.   Recently, the Supreme Court has given some indication it may consider one of the issues.  We can only hope.

 

What are the chances of success?  Who knows?

 

Why do football teams run the flea flicker play?   It does not work all of the time, but when it does, the results are spectacular.  Why should conservatives all hope this works out?  Because this wipes out almost everything the Obama regime has done.  We get a do over.

 

You would think, even the RINOs who want to denigrate the eligibility issue could figure this one out.

Views: 85876

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

from:http://www.coachisright.com/justice-roberts-massacres-constitution-...

by Doug Book,  staff writer

 John Roberts is said to be quite concerned about the way in which history will view his tour of duty as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Well he doesn’t have to worry any longer, for his remarkable decision allowing Congress to impose a tax improperly and in a previously unconstitutional manner will secure his place in Court history for all time.

Very few—including Obama himself—believed the scheme of presenting the individual mandate penalty as a tax would pass constitutional muster. The DOJ included a “the penalty is actually a tax” argument in an ObamaCare brief to the Supreme Court, to be sure.  But that was a typical lawyers’ game of “throw everything against the wall and see if it will stick.” It was upon the Commerce Clause powers of congress—and to a lesser extent, the Necessary and Proper clause– that the DOJ and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli depended to convince the Court that the mandate was constitutional.

In fact, Obama himself told the American public that the penalty was NOT a tax, as did White House budget director Jeff Zients. (1)

“So if I am part of a family that does not buy health insurance in violation of the president’s health-care program and I have to pay [a fine] because of that, that is not a tax increase – that is not a tax on me?” asked Congressman Scott Garrett of Zeints. “The Affordable Care Act saves money,” Zeints evaded. But Garrett reminded the budget director that a moment earlier in his testimony, Zeints claimed there would BE no tax increase. “So [the mandate penalty], that’s not a tax,” pressed Garrett?  “No,” Zeints responded.  (2)

Indeed nowhere in the massive text of the Affordable Care Act is the individual mandate referred to as a tax. Although ordered to be collected by the IRS, the mandate is deliberately and diligently referred to as a “penalty” throughout. The reason?  “To be a constitutional tax, it must be an excise tax, an income tax, or a proportional capitation tax.” (3) These are the ONLY types of tax which the United State Congress has a recognized, constitutional power to impose. Cato Institute policy analyst and law professor Dave Kopel explains:

“The 16th Amendment grants Congress the power to “collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.” The Supreme Court has defined “derived” income to mean “undeniable accessions to wealth.” Here, the mere refusal to purchase a product is not any kind of “income” or accession of wealth.

Likewise, the penalty cannot be an excise tax. An excise tax is imposed on an event or item, such as the acquisition of a machine gun. Again, there is no event to be taxed, and never in American history has a federal excise tax been imposed on an American’s inactivity.

Thus, the tax is constitutionally a “direct tax” – similar to a head tax, or a tax on real estate. The Constitution requires that such taxes be imposed “in Proportion to the Census.” The mandate penalty is not so apportioned. (1)

Kopel’s conclusion is startling:

“The Obama tax theory, in effect, would give Congress the power to make laws on any subject, impose a fine for noncompliance, have the IRS collect the fine, and then claim that the entire regulatory structure is part of the tax power. The result would nullify Article I of the Constitution, which carefully grants Congress 18 specific powers – and does not grant a general power to legislate on everything.”

 With his ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts gives the impression of a judge desperately searching for a way to find a buddy’s illegal argument, legal. As experts in the field of constitutional law comment on his decision, they must conclude that the Justice eliminated what little remained of the liberty we the people were asked by the Founders to safeguard for ourselves and future generations. What a disgrace. What a tragedy.

I think Roberts' decision is based on the purpotedly $1 Billion dollars in the Vatican Bank being held for him, or the other bank, I'm forgetting which one!  I'm starting to believe all of this White Hats' stuff; this obamaoromneycare decision clenched it for me!  Also, according to the White Hats, oRobMe is involved!! What do you guys think?!!

I often wondered if people do some wrong act for money, such as Saska's billion, what possible gratification could such an amount render?

Royce, I think we're being played for fools by the DC crowd. They play "good cop, bad cop" and reverse roles depending on the issue. And we're the suckers their sending down the river without a paddle.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio is under a new attack from Washington and left-wing billionaire George Soros - furious that Joe has refused to back down in the face of new lawless pro-amnesty actions by the Administration.

Democrat operatives say they are going to "take down" the Sheriff - the most prominent national symbol in the fight against illegal immigration - by using $10 million pledged by Soros to defeat Arpaio in November.

Please help Joe fight back now.Donate Now.

Here are the details...

 Barack Obama issued an executive decree granting amnesty to 1.4 million illegal aliens last week- after Congress three times voted down the amnesty provision. Press 'experts' said it had the impact of law, and the Congress has wavered and worried about what to do.

 But Sheriff Joe told ABC News that regardless of Obama's amnesty edict, “I’m going to continue to enforce all our illegal immigration laws.” Joe said if his deputies find illegals covered by Obama's order, or ones who sneak across from Mexico to try for it, "That won’t happen in my county...they will still be arrested,” Arpaio said. Critics fumed, and denounced Joe as "racist".

 Then, after the Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's immigration law left a key provision intact, Obama closed it up by cutting off the state from cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). CNN's headline read "Arizona Defanged by DHS". But Sheriff Joe didn't get the memo. He told Fox's Neil Cavuto that “I’m not stopping anything. I’m not going to bend to the federal government, especially when we still have state laws to enforce.”

 Immediately, Democrat operatives in Arizona and Washington started telling reporters that Arpaio was "defying the rule of law" - despite Obama himself bypassing Congress to enforce a law they refused to pass. And Soros allies said that they would begin massive ad spending to defeat Arpaio once the Democrat nominee for Sheriff is chosen - just 3 weeks away.

We cannot let Joe be defeated by national pro-amnesty forces! Please help Sheriff Joe fight back! Donate Now.



Sheriff Joe will face a far-left billionaire's war chest twice the size of his own. But that is not all he faces...

 Obama and Eric Holder are using the power of your government for a political show trial to try and crush him. First they launched a 3-year investigation of him, trying to find any kind of wrongdoing or corruption - and failed. So now they have filed a "racial profiling" suit against him, and want a judge force Joe to turn over control of his department - the 4th largest county force in America - to the DOJ.

 Joe has refused to give in to Obama or Holder, and has demanded they "show me the evidence". But they have none, because Arpaio is just doing his job protecting citizens from illegal invaders. But he needs our support to fight the corrupt Holder and stay on the job.


Sheriff Joe is committed to enforcing our immigration laws to protect every citizen.

 That's why he was a target for this Administration from day one. Because Arizona is the gateway for illegal aliens into America. And the open-borders forces don’t want Sheriff Joe to be the gate, stopping the flow of illegal labor – and potential voters for their cause – into this country.

Joe will not quit. He cannot quit. But Joe does not have the resources to battle both Obama and George Soros alone. He needs our help. He needs our help! Donate Now!!

Holder celebrating at a pow-wow with Leftist Latinos in Florida. It tells you unmistakably who is driving the ship.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/06/holder-vows-solidarity-wi...

Friday, June 29, 2012

Eric Holder: No Executive Privilege for Texas Governor Perry



The Department of Justice is asserting that the governor of Texas, as well as state legislators, have no executive or deliberative process privilege to shield documents -- even as Eric Holder and President Obama assert executive and deliberative process privilege to shield documents from Congress in its investigation of Fast & Furious. That refusal has already resulted in Holder being held in contempt by the House of Representatives in a 255-to-67 vote that was joined by 17 Democratic representatives.
On June 20, Deputy Attorney General James Cole sent a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa informing him that President Obama was asserting executive privilege over all documents after Feb. 4, 2011, “generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning the Department’s response to congressional oversight and related media inquires.” Feb. 4 was the date that Justice sent a letter to Congress falsely denying that the Department had allowed weapons to cross the border, claiming that federal authorities made “every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.” It was not until Dec. 2, 2011, 10 months later, that the Justice Department withdrew that denial and acknowledged that Operation Fast and Furious was “fundamentally flawed.”
But Deputy Attorney General Cole’s June 20th letter made no mention of all the documents generated prior to Feb. 4 sought by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform directly related to the initiation, planning, approval and implementation of Operation Fast and Furious. When Eric Holder sent a letter to the president on June 19 requesting that President Obama assert executive privilege, he said that executive privilege is “fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of power under the Constitution,” quoting U.S. v. Nixon. More

I received an email from a friend who is a member of a group to which I belong She is a super volunteer for the Republican Party since Obama became President. She is determined to defeat him. In 2010 she volunteered for a US Senator and she made 47,000 calls. She's a volunteer super-star. When top Republicans go to her state they ask to meet her. She's met Christie, Jindal, Rubio, etc. Romney's campaign personally contacted her and asked her to volunteer for him. Which she has been doing along with volunteering for 4 other state candidates. She makes calls 10 to 12 hours a day. She calls Repubs, Dems and Indy's. She is determined to beat Obama. Anyway this was her email to me today:

"I also want to tell all about my day with phone calls today.  All I had to say today was Republican and people right away responded yes, yes, yes.  Sometimes they had me repeat it just to make sure they heard correctly.  Also,  I have not had so many people wanting to talk and express how they are feeling.  I believe they were wanting someone to give them a little bit of hope.  I had a man that was 90 years old, blind, several degrees and was a doctor.  He just wanted to talk and express his thoughts about what is happening.  He said that he was so happy to be 90 years old that he did not have the time to suffer what the young people will be going thru.  I felt so sorry for him.  He talked for 20 minutes and I felt bad to have to let him go.  Also, the voice messages I was leaving, people were actually returning the calls.  It was a great day and I hated to leave."

 

 

 

 

 

This is in reply to my last email to my friend who sent me the last email (in my comment above). This should give you a lift, it has me. Americans may finally be waking up:

"It is exciting here.  As I was leaving the office yesterday also the phone rang and when I answered a woman said "You just left me a message and I want to help", well she asked about literature drops and said she wanted one of our large signs in her yard and she was going to ask a neighbor also on a busy highway to put one in her yard.  It has been like that since Thursday.  People are asking for 2 x 4 or 4 x 8 signs instead of regular yard signs.  A man came in and gave me a whole list of places to put 4 x 8 signs at businesses also.  It really is a great sign for us all here."

 

 

 

 

 

Watch this video of the Hypocrite in Chief:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwzYVEunPQ0&sns=em


WND EXCLUSIVE

Unexpected turn in eligibility case: 'Put it on record!'

'This judge can't get out; if he screws around, he's violating law'

Published: 2 hours ago

The attorney in a publicized challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president told WND the Florida case took an unexpected turn in court yesterday, one he says “pulled the rug out” from Obama’s lawyers and should force a quick answer from the judge.

Attorney Larry Klayman told WND he had expected an “uneventful” hearing in the ongoing case, which returned before Judge Terry Lewis yesterday, but instead found a legal tangle that he believes means Lewis will “have to make a decision, have to put it on record.”

Klayman originally filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County.”

As WND reported, however, attorneys representing Obama at the case’s main hearing, which was livestreamed by WND, argued that the Florida presidential preference primary, which listed Obama as the only Democrat nominee, didn’t make him the party’s nominee for president. They urged Lewis to decide that Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee for president and therefore ignore evidence challenging his eligibility.

A video recording of the hearing is available for viewing online at...

But Klayman told WND yesterday that Florida law is unique in that it gives the average voter “much greater freedom to challenge eligibility and fraud than most other states.”

Florida law permits filing for “declaratory relief” at any time, Klayman said, a move that would force a judge to rule on the facts of the case even before a decision on whether to compel some legal action. In other words, in the Voeltz case, instead of waiting until the nominating convention – which Klayman called a “shell game” Obama attorneys are playing to put off the issue –Lewis would be pushed to make a declaration on Obama’s eligibility “whether nominated or not.”

“Lewis would have to reach a decision; he would have to put it on record,” Klayman said. “By amending for declaratory relief, we’re pulling the rug right out from Obama and the Florida secretary of state.”

Klayman told WND Obama’s lawyers immediately went into a tailspin and filed to have the amendment for declaratory relief stricken, which the judge granted, arguing he wanted to wait to issue a formal decision in the case.

But Klayman said his team is willing to file a stand-alone complaint for declaratory relief with Lewis as soon as next week and “pull the rug out from under him, too.”

“This judge can’t get out from under his legal requirement,” Klayman said. “If he screws around, he’s violating law.”

In hundreds of cases filed challenging Obama’s eligibility, the full range of questions – from Obama’s birth records, charged by some as fraudulent, to the Constitution’s meaning of “natural born citizen” – have never been ruled upon, dismissed typically on questions of who has “standing” to bring the challenge.

Klayman, however, told WND, “It doesn’t matter how Lewis rules, the losing side will appeal, and this case is going up, maybe all the way to the Supreme Court.”

Still, he said, “I want Lewis to address the issue of eligibility and create a record, so we can take it up before the election. I’m still confident, hopeful that will happen.”

Following the case’s first hearing, the judge said he would review the law, but he had pointed questions for both sides.

For example, When Klayman noted the Founding Fathers established the natural-born citizen requirement because they wanted to avoid foreign influence on a president from a non-citizen parent, Lewis countered by posing a hypothetical situation in which a candidate’s two U.S.-citizen parents later emigrate to Israel.

Klayman said the Founding Fathers’ attempt to avoid a conflict of interest in the Oval Office did not include every possible scenario.

The judge asked whether the Democratic Party, as a private group, had a right to choose a nominee, even if that person was ineligible.

Lewis questioned a citation by Obama’s attorneys of a Florida law that suggests when only one person is on the ballot, that person automatically becomes the nominee. He told the attorneys he would review the details of the law.

The arguments by Obama’s attorneys reflected their request that the judge simply dismiss the case because they claim a sitting president chosen by his party at multiple levels is not yet officially the nominee.

Klayman accused the Obama attorneys trying to delay the issue, as numerous courts did in 2008 until the election was over and Obama was inaugurated.

The judge could remove Obama’s name from the November ballot in Florida, a crucial swing state, should he determine that the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen” can be applied at the primary level.

Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete ...

Klayman told WND that during a hearing last month on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that the plaintiff’s brief cited U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875 defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, while the Obama campaign’s arguments provided no citations.

Defining the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility.

The U.S. Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement is not imposed on other federal officials. The writings of the Founders indicate the requirement was meant to ensure that no person who had divided loyalties would serve as commander in chief.

Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was not born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.

Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of the laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking.

WND earlier reported on the case, which raises some of the same issues that have been raised in other state ballot challenges. Specifically it alleges:

On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein Obama published on the Internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama Senior.

There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.

The action follows by weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s eligibility. The investigation by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found probable cause that Obama’s birth certificate was forged and fraudulently presented as a genuine document.

The plaintiff has submitted affidavits from Arpaio and others to support the claim.

The complaint explains that even if Obama was born within the United States, he is still not a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s because his father was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936, making him a British subject, according to the British Nationality Act of 1948.

A case filing explains: “No physical, paper copy of defendant Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility. … Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered.”

When asked by Judge Lewis, Klayman confirmed he could add to the complaint details of the evidence Obama was not born in the U.S.

Obama’s attorneys told the judge that other courts have decided that courts should not make such decisions and the process is better handled by Congress. They said state courts especially are not suited to making a decision on the eligibility of Obama.

“They are precluded from judging the qualifications of candidates for president of the United States,” the Obama attorneys said.

But Klayman pleaded with the judge to decide the issue, because a determination made after the election could negate Florida’s vote.

“Florida has a special duty not just on behalf of the citizens of Florida but on behalf of the United States,” he said.

Klayman referred to a recent Obama order to underscore the significance of the Founders’ desire that the president not have divided loyalties or “not even a hint of foreign influence.”

“Just a few days ago, he issued an executive order … which in effect allows illegal alien students who came into this country … to remain in this country. … The president’s own father was in fact here on a student visa and ultimately was deported because that visa expired.”

Klayman reiterated the Supreme Court’s Minor v. Happersett definition of “natural born citizen” as a person born in the country of two citizen parents.

“The point is this, your honor,” said Klayman. “The president is not like everybody else. If that was the case the framers would have said ‘citizens’ [can be president.]”

He accused Obama’s attorneys of trying to “push the issue down the road” until the legal process would fail due to lack of time.

“It’s a shell game,” Klayman said. ” … Neither the Florida Constitution nor the federal Constitution … would ever sanction what they are saying.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/unexpected-turn-in-eligibility-case-put-...

Unexpected turn in eligibility case: 'Put it on record!'

You read the right new sources Janet -- great minds focus on similar issues :oo}}}}}

 charley

RSS

Tea Party Nation is a social network

 






© 2013   Created by Judson Phillips.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service